WEBVTT 00:00:00.226 --> 00:00:30.110 - I'd like to call the Thursday, June 12th, 2025 meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission meeting to order. Would you call the roll, please? Yeah. Duncan Campbell. Present. Karen Duffy. Present. Jack Baker. Present. Jeremy Hacker. Ernesto Castaneda. Reynard Cross. Here. Sam DeSolo. I'm here. Melanie Dusner. Here. Elizabeth Mitchell. Here. Daniel Schlegel. 00:00:30.946 --> 00:01:00.094 - We have forum. Thank you. I would like to entertain a motion about the minutes. Motion to approve. Thank you. Do I have a second? Would you call the roll, please? Yes. And who is the second on that? Renard. Thank you. Jack Baker? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. 00:01:00.322 --> 00:01:21.950 - Daniel Schlegel. Sorry, he's not here. We have one, two, three, four, five, accepting the minutes. Approved. Do we have any staff review stuff today? No. OK, so I will read the thing. At this point in the meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission will hear petitions for certificates of appropriateness, followed by demolition delays. 00:01:22.274 --> 00:01:39.710 - For each item, the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report. We'll then hear if the petitioner has any additional information, followed by a round of questions from each commissioner. We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking unless or until addressed by the Chair. 00:01:39.810 --> 00:02:08.638 - unless a question is directly addressed to them. If a member of the public or petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand until recognized by the chair. Upon completion of public comments, the chair will entertain motions from the commissioners regarding the relevant certificate of appropriateness or demolition delay. Once a motion is made by a commissioner, the chair then opens up discussion of the item for members of the commission only. The chair will call for a vote once each commissioner has been given a chance to comment on the motion. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, 00:02:08.866 --> 00:02:37.566 - and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. Thank you. OK. We're starting tonight with certificate of appropriateness application 2526. This is for 1018 East Wiley in the Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Asa Polly. Is the petitioner here? The petitioner looks like he's present online. OK. I will actually ask him to unmute. 00:02:41.506 --> 00:03:08.574 - Thank you. 1018 East Wiley is a two-story brick colonial revival house built in 1930 and demonstrates a high degree of integrity but has some replacement features including aluminum railings and a steel lamp post. The request, we would like to replace two non-original metal handrails leading up from the sidewalk to the front yard up to the steps of the front entrance. 00:03:09.058 --> 00:03:38.910 - The current ones are very wobbly and seem to be from an inexpensive kit. We would like to replace the handrails with black powder-covered metal railings fabricated by the same contractor who recently installed them for our neighbors across the street at 1019 East Wiley. The style would be the same as the ones they put in, picture included, although we could probably modify it if needed. We would also like to replace the non-original light post next to the handrail on the stairs by the sidewalk. 00:03:39.298 --> 00:04:05.758 - Again, the existing one is made from a flimsy, inexpensive material, and we want to get something sturdier and more visually attractive that would match the Georgian style of the house. Pictured on the left is the current handrail. On the right, the style of replacement that's been installed across the street. And then current lamppost and the proposed replacement. 00:04:07.202 --> 00:04:35.230 - Staff recommends approval of COA 2526. The current railings and lampposts are not likely original to the house and the proposed replacement are of a style and material compatible with the house and district. Does the petitioner have anything you'd like to add? No. I guess you read it also. Thank you. Have we heard anything from the Elm Heights design review committee? Have not. Thank you. Questions? 00:04:35.362 --> 00:05:02.494 - Elizabeth, any questions? No questions, it's self-explanatory. Bill? No questions. Jack? Something just occurred to me, and I'll ask about it. The old lamppost being called Flimsy, it looks to me like the new lamppost is of a similar quality. I'm not really saying no to anything, but I'm just pointing out that if we're going to call one Flimsy, the other one might be 00:05:02.626 --> 00:05:27.710 - called Thimsy as well after it ages a few years. It's more of a statement than a question, sorry. But that's all. OK. Karen, questions? No questions. Duncan? No. Renard? No. Anybody from the public have a question or comment on this one? Anybody online? All right. I will entertain a motion. OK. I say perfect. 00:05:28.418 --> 00:05:55.006 - All right. We got a motion to approve from Elizabeth Mitchell. Do I have a second? Second. Yes, I'll second. Go ahead. OK. Discussion. Anybody have comments from any additional comments? I think it's all fairly self-explanatory. I think we can, unless I hear otherwise, call the vote. OK. There's a motion to approve. 00:05:55.138 --> 00:06:21.918 - Recommend staff approved recommendation of COA 2526. It's been motioned and seconded. We'll take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. Passes with a 5-0-0 vote. Thank you for coming in. I'll get you a COA. OK. 00:06:22.178 --> 00:06:49.246 - Next item, COA 2529. Address is 601 North Morton Street. Um, petitioners are Lucas Brown and Sean Yerton. Uh, I believe Sean is here. Um, this is the Showers Brothers administrative building, um, built in 1916. It's an office building designed by Bloomington architect, J.L. Nichols. The building is currently undergoing a substantial interior renovation. 00:06:49.826 --> 00:07:16.222 - and a new set of entry doors have been approved for a secondary Southern elevation. Um, this proposal, um, includes, um, a rear addition to the west end of the showers administrative building, adding a two-story residential unit facing the rear alley. This work will include the removal of the existing concrete masonry unit exterior walls and the existing roof framing. 00:07:16.578 --> 00:07:45.182 - The addition will be framed on top of and around the existing brick masonry. The exterior door will be placed on the north side of the building. The exterior skin will be primarily metal paneling like that that has been used in the recent kiln renovation and addition. It will be dark bronze match matching many of the other panel applications in the district. There will be an accent area at the building cutout that will bring color to the West elevation. 00:07:45.986 --> 00:08:12.830 - The windows will be Anderson 200 series double hung picture windows and picture windows with exterior mountains matching the windows used at the recent kiln renovation and addition. The exterior door will be of a similar material. Lucas Brown is here. No, Lucas should be available on Zoom now. Oh, great. I'm just going to go through some of these and staff recommendation. 00:08:20.642 --> 00:08:48.606 - Staff recommends approval of COA 2529. Although by this point, the alterations to the rear of the showers administrative building are likely greater than 50 years old. Elements of the structure, including brick walls, piers, limestone capping, and an elevated exterior pipe are of greater significance to the building than the latter cement block infill. The addition is singled out in the district guidelines as an element within the district that may require redesign for more practical use. 00:08:50.338 --> 00:09:20.158 - The proposed rear addition presented in this packet is differentiated from the original building while being compatible in scale, massing, size, rhythm, and color. Important architectural elements including original brick, limestone, and utility pipes will be retained. And the additional second story would not obscure important rear facade elements such as top floor windows or the parapet. The proposed new materials including dark bronze and red metal panels 00:09:20.418 --> 00:09:47.838 - and divided light windows with exterior mountains have been approved for other buildings in the district and fit the site's industrial context. One new opening is being proposed for the original brick on the north elevation to accommodate a new door for the primary entrance to the unit. Because the west elevation that is currently cement block faces an alley that is accessible to vehicle traffic, this addition will need to accommodate an entrance on one of the brick elevations. 00:09:48.482 --> 00:10:14.718 - Processed into the ground near the rear of the building on a less trafficked side, the proposed entrance is inconspicuous and necessary to allow safe access. Additionally, the proposed replacement of a vent on the south elevation with a window of the same dimensions would constitute a minor alteration to a secondary facade and retain the current pattern of openings. Do either of the petitioners have anything they'd like to add? 00:10:18.210 --> 00:10:47.870 - I just want to do a sound check real fast. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay, I am currently in a vehicle traveling in San Francisco, so I'll do my best to participate. She should have hired somebody else. Do you have anything to add? No. All right. And Lucas, nothing to add? I'm just... 00:10:48.130 --> 00:11:15.902 - Curious. We didn't hear anything after curious. Why don't you guys proceed with any questions you may have? OK, sounds like a plan. Questions? No, I don't have any questions. No any questions? No. Jack, questions? No. No. Duncan? 00:11:16.706 --> 00:11:46.334 - In the rendering at the north entrance, that's a grassy area now. Is that where it's going to stay grass, or is that going to, this looks like it's like a paved? It is currently a grassy area. And yes, I would say it's going to remain a grassy area, if not landscaped one of the other. OK, so it's not going to be, this is just a rendering? Correct, correct, yeah. 00:11:46.850 --> 00:12:16.606 - This isn't a submittal of any type. And the mechanical, would you go back Noah to that, the mechanicals that are in that yard, are they going to be removed? That are in the yard? Yeah, where his pointer is. Those that previously, where's your pointer at right now? Wiggle it around a little. If you're referring to the orange, no, that's already been removed. Okay. 00:12:16.898 --> 00:12:44.798 - Um, that's an older photo. Um, so that's been downsized by, um, the gas company. Um, we are leaving all the historical, um, I guess we'll call replaced, um, duct, um, that provided, um, utility, I guess, from the administration building to the mill. Yeah. So just that in the rendering, it shows it. 00:12:44.962 --> 00:13:11.742 - disconnected over the alley. Is that what happens, or does it continue up to the other showers buildings? It does continue, correct. Isn't that correct, Noah? It does. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions? I've got a couple of questions. One is just a clarification. 00:13:12.002 --> 00:13:38.750 - The windows on the renderings are shown that is sort of blocked off on those third story windows. Are those? And then the photographs, they appear to be windows. So they are not blocked off. They are active windows. Okay, great. And what are you doing for drainage at that new entry on the north side? Good question. So that actually, that whole side is going to be remediated. 00:13:39.074 --> 00:14:04.798 - We have some negative grade going towards the building. So part of this project is when we are going to, if this is approved, when we're excavating for that, the whole side is going to get all new drainage, all perimeter drains. So that will have probably a channel drain right at the base of the door. Luckily, all the city pipes are right in that 00:14:04.994 --> 00:14:32.926 - same location. So you can just kick it over to the lateral storm or whatever? Correct. Okay. Cool. Yes. They do go into an existing storm currently. Okay. Since we're on drainage, you've got a flat roof and you've got a balcony with an enclosed. How are you dealing with drainage off of the roof and drainage off the balcony? I've asked Lucas this. Lucas, are you better now? Yeah. Can you hear me? Perfect. Okay. Yeah. 00:14:33.058 --> 00:15:00.030 - You know, that'll be a little change in floor numbers so that the balcony is just basically going to be a low slope roof that goes to a drain that's going to go back into a guttering system. So we'll have a pedestal system there with an EPDM roof under it that slopes to a drain. It'll be very discreet. So the drain goes to an internal downspout? Yeah. 00:15:00.322 --> 00:15:29.918 - We will work it out. It'll be discrete. I mean, we have downspouts that are not currently represented on the elevation, but the current downspouts, I do believe, follow the sort of standalone co-listers there on the west side. So, plus we have a lot of pipe there with the existing steam pipes. Yeah, I think you can see there. I think it's the second one, but I know that there's a downspout 00:15:33.986 --> 00:16:02.078 - It is currently bent metal, six inch guttering, and we plan to maintain that except on the new flat, or the... The balcony. Correct. Yeah, cool. I have one other, this is sort of an advisory question, or maybe I'll get to that in comments, or questions. Since this is right up against the alley and there's no shielding, 00:16:03.074 --> 00:16:31.966 - for this building, basically from the street, and you've got all this metal at grade, have you considered any guardrail, bollard, something to keep your building from getting dinged? There are currently some already in place, I believe, but absolutely. Yeah, we will do anything we need to do precautionary for sure, especially on the corner on 10th Street for sure. Yeah, as much as possible. 00:16:32.962 --> 00:17:02.206 - And we're going to soften that edge there. I'd say we have about three feet between the alley and the facade. And we were planning on doing some landscaping there, which will protect it as well. OK, that's very helpful. Thank you. We tried a little wainscote of stone or brick, and it just didn't really feel right. It was just too much going on. And it just felt a lot better to bring that metal panel all the way down. But it was investigated. Got you. Thank you. 00:17:03.234 --> 00:17:28.254 - Do we have any questions or comments from the public? Anybody online? All right. I would entertain a motion. All right. Let's talk about it. Comments, Bernard? No, I like it. Duncan? 00:17:32.002 --> 00:18:00.030 - You know, I'm fine with it. I went over there earlier with the contractors and Noah and looked at some of these issues and I'm pretty happy with... I mean, what's happened in this district is that all of these industrial buildings have essentially been reoriented to the center and where new streetscapes have been put in and, you know, there's now these pedestrian plazas and all that. 00:18:00.226 --> 00:18:28.830 - In almost every case when they're rehabilitated, there's some necessity to determine new facades in terms of access and public view, if you will. So it's an unusual situation in a district like this where almost all the orientation has been turned away from existing streets into a new interior plan, if you will. And I think they've done a pretty good job of it. And so I actually like that they're 00:18:28.994 --> 00:18:55.902 - picking up compatibility aspects from the other new construction, which continues to tie these buildings together. And it gives this building another front. And I think the fact that it's contemporary is appropriate in this. And they've done a good job of holding onto the brick where it is shown unnecessarily in some cases. And they've protected the back windows. 00:18:56.802 --> 00:19:22.110 - I like the north entrance. I think that's smart. It's very adequate. Nice job. Nothing to add to that. I like the project. I like the use of the metal combined with brick. The fact that they left the brick feature, particularly the columns along the alley. 00:19:22.210 --> 00:19:51.294 - They left the old steam piping, condensate piping, I think is a nice design element working with it. And as Duncan says, it has coherence with the other buildings and with this one. So yes, I think it's a fine project. I agree with what's already been said. Yeah, I think it's well sorted. Thank you. I think we can call the vote. OK, there's a motion. 00:19:51.490 --> 00:20:19.230 - on COA 2529, which has been seconded. We'll take a vote now, starting with Jack Baker. Yes. Renard Cross. Yes. Sam DeSolar. Yes. Melanie Dusner. Yes. Elizabeth Mitchell. Yes. That is approval is 5-0-0. COA is approved. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, everyone. Lucas, thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. 00:20:20.290 --> 00:20:46.942 - Next item is COA 2534 at 228 West Kirkwood Avenue in the Courthouse Square Historic District. Petitioner is Blake Rowe. The lot at 228 West Kirkwood was occupied by a three-story brick building 00:20:47.330 --> 00:21:14.878 - in the mid to late 19th century, but appears to have been vacant since at least 1897. The adjacent building currently located on the corner used to be the Smith Holden Music Store. The new structure proposed to be constructed on a longtime paved lot. The lot is within the Courthouse Square Historic District and is very narrow, 18 feet wide by 132 feet long. 00:21:15.586 --> 00:21:43.966 - It is adjacent to the Smith Holden Music Building, which is a contributing feature. The proposed building has received BZA approvals. The structure would be three stories in height, and it is our intent to provide a reference to the once-visible music score that was located on the party wall of the Smith Holden Building. Materials to be used include limestone and brick masonry on three visible facades, 00:21:44.290 --> 00:22:09.086 - a patterning to mimic the expected downtown window openings with a two over one size opening. And the Kirkwood facade will align with its major elements with the Smith Holden building adjacent to it. Windows will be double hung Anderson 100 series with a 5 rex frame. The storefront material will be dark bronze aluminum paneling. 00:22:18.114 --> 00:22:47.134 - Staff recommends approval of COA 2534. The proposed design for 228 West Kirkwood references the history and architecture of the Courthouse Square Historic District without establishing a false sense of historical development. In height and setback, it matches the adjacent contributing buildings. The use of brick and limestone as primary building materials as well as design elements referencing 19th century commercial buildings relate the construction, the new construction to its context 00:22:47.682 --> 00:23:17.438 - while dark bronze aluminum panels and garage doors distinguish the building's age without clashing with the general aesthetic of contributing buildings. Located on the side of the Smith Holden building on the corner of Kirkwood and Morton, this new construction would not obscure the building's primary elevation, but does cover the windowless secondary elevation. While there was a building here prior to 1897, the lot has been unoccupied ever since, leaving an exposed internal brick wall. 00:23:18.210 --> 00:23:48.094 - A long-time residence, we'll remember the Scorda Hogi Carmichael Stardust painted on the side of the Smith Holden Music Store. The proposed design references this with the addition of the first line of the song on Longby West Cornice. Does the petitioner have anything he'd like to add? I know, thank you. All right. Questions? We don't have any questions? 00:23:48.802 --> 00:24:17.246 - Duncan. On the north facade, where those two balconies are, one over the other, what's the wall surface there in the back there that's shown as plain white? The wall surface of the balcony doors? Yeah, it's just shown as a white, plain white surface. On either side of the balcony doors? Yeah. I don't think that's detailed right there. 00:24:17.346 --> 00:24:45.598 - specifically on that drawing, more than likely brick to match the front facade. I'm talking about the north side. The skinny little bay. Where the double porches are. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. See where the cursor is? Yes, I do. Yeah, I'm sorry. The architect isn't here today. 00:24:45.922 --> 00:25:13.950 - I would have to guess probably brick to match the facade. I would guess otherwise, but. I mean, it didn't show us. All the other brick is showing, so yeah. I'm guessing that would be some kind of exterior stucco, but. It could be some type of evis or some product. 00:25:16.226 --> 00:25:45.758 - How deep is that balcony? Sorry to ask out of turn, but. It's on six. Yeah. Seven foot four. Thank you. I mean, that doesn't answer my question, so I can't really go on beyond there. But that's the only question I had. OK. Karen, you have questions? 00:25:46.114 --> 00:26:16.030 - Is there any room for or plans for any kind of landscaping between the building and sidewalk or a sidewalk right up next to the building? The sidewalk is adjacent just due to the narrow nature of the overall site. What are these two structures on top that are kind of undefined? Are they stair towers? It's a stair tower for roof access, yes. 00:26:17.122 --> 00:26:46.430 - And what kind of materials are normally used on that? Is it metal? It doesn't indicate a color. I wonder if, I don't know how visible these will be from the street and whether we ought to consider coloration or not on these things. The design has set them back kind of more toward the north east side of the building so that standing on Morton or Kirkwood they're not visible line of sight. 00:26:50.466 --> 00:27:15.806 - I guess my concern is across the streets another condo and they'll look directly onto them and onto the roof of this. I would consider, I would think you'd want to consider what kind of coloration to sort of darken or to put them, make them less conspicuous in the sight line. No other questions. 00:27:16.322 --> 00:27:43.870 - Would it be possible to get an updated packet with more of these details and numbers we can read? I think compared to the last one in particular, I had a much harder time trying to pin down the specifics of this one. That would be good. Old eyes need bigger. And also, I have the same question as Duncan about what this is going to look like. 00:27:46.114 --> 00:28:09.982 - What is this going to be? Same question as Duncan. I'd like to know that. Could you talk a little bit about what the musical score signage is made of, how it's attached to the building? Can we go back to that elevation there? 00:28:17.314 --> 00:28:46.718 - This is metal. I think that's what I was looking at. I think that's noted. Decorative metal panels that would make up the score line across there. Do we have any questions or comments from the public on this case? Anyone online? 00:28:52.450 --> 00:29:20.286 - I will entertain a motion. I'll move to approve with the condition that the stair towers are treated in such a way that they are less obvious to people across the way in the upper floors. In other words, minimize the color to a darker 00:29:20.386 --> 00:29:50.334 - darker tint of some sort, more like the coloration of the brick or dark bronze, that sort of thing, to minimize their conspicuousness. So a staff-approved color, darkish color? Yes, dull, darkish. Do I have a second? Well, can we add that we know what that material is going to be, the area that Duncan and I were talking about? Do you want a staff approval for that? 00:29:51.778 --> 00:30:21.182 - Let's see what that's going to look like. What dimensions? What dimensions? It was mentioned by Melody that the... It was. Well, we're going to talk about it first. Okay. I'm sorry. And we can add friendly amendments if we want. I mean, the balcony here is seven foot four in depth. But it's a difficult packet to read. So I think we're at the point where let's talk about it. 00:30:21.410 --> 00:30:47.806 - Comments, additional comments? It's hard to read. Yeah. I mean, I would personally, I would rather have this packet resubmitted with all the details. I mean, we've done that before. Is this a, let me ask you this. Is this a problem translating it into our packet from what you got from the conditioner? I mean, the packet that I got from the architect itself is fairly clear. Um, it's just when it gets copied into here, um, 00:30:49.506 --> 00:31:19.294 - But I mean, if we're not sure what some of these surfaces are, that's incomplete information. It's a problem. Yeah. And it's a problem on our end in some way. So whenever this happens in the future, just tag the draw files onto the end of the packet. Any further comments? Jack? Karen? Duncan? 00:31:22.114 --> 00:31:51.870 - I don't quite know how to explain it, but I understand the sensitivity of the musical score. And I was living here when they originally painted that. It wasn't all that long ago. But it seems out of scale to me, not to make a pun. It just seems out of scale to all the details of the fenestration. 00:31:52.194 --> 00:32:21.822 - I mean, it would be totally legible at a much smaller scale. And the original was way smaller scale than that. And it was the entire first, well, 12 bars at least. So I don't know if that's a rendering issue or not, but it just seems like it's made too much of against the pretty careful delineation of the fenestration and the architecture. I think it detracts, frankly. 00:32:21.922 --> 00:32:51.230 - And I'm a sentimental about Stardust, everybody, but the fact that that mural was painted on that wall 30 years ago and subsequently disappeared doesn't make it all that critical to me. So I guess I'd prefer not to see it at all, but I'm not, if that's what the developer wants to do, I understand it, but it just seems that the scale needs to be brought down. 00:32:53.282 --> 00:33:22.782 - At least by half. Just saying. I kind of concur with Duncan. I think the building is actually really well sorted out in terms of the scale and the level of detail and the proportions of the elements. I think it does a lot on a very constrained site, and it doesn't overpower its neighbors. 00:33:23.170 --> 00:33:51.262 - Uh, but I would agree with Duncan that the, the, I think the, the mural and it feels kind of very, it feels very postmodern. It feels, which is sort of a curse word in my household. Um, but you know, I think this building is like 95% there, but, but, uh, I would really appreciate it if 00:33:51.394 --> 00:34:19.582 - the petitioner was willing to bring down the scale and visual presence of that sort of musical cornice. And you could probably get a few more bars in and also clarify what those elements are on the back balcony. And then I'd have no problems at all with it. But would you be willing to talk to Doug and have him take a look at that? Sure. 00:34:21.058 --> 00:34:50.366 - If you want to make those a condition of the approval, I don't think we have any issue with that. Well, I think there's two ways we can go about doing this. One is we can ask you to come back in two weeks with that done, and we can know what we're seeing, which everybody at the table is a lot more comfortable with. Or we can try and run it through. That's fine. We'll do that. I'll just have Doug have those items prepared and ready to present. 00:34:51.810 --> 00:35:17.214 - much more amenable. Thank you. So I think we've got a motion on the table that we and second it that we need to vote on or we can ask for it to be withdrawn. There was a second. Okay, so we did not have a second. My apologies. 00:35:18.594 --> 00:35:44.254 - We should have had a second before all that hammering. So I think it's very clear. I would move to continue this to the next meeting. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. And if there are any color considerations in the musical notation or that back wall or any of that, we ought to be able to see what those colors are. Yeah. 00:35:44.578 --> 00:36:12.062 - Black and white stuff. A lot of detail on what that musical cornice is, whether it's transparent or whether it's solid white behind there. I mean, should we remove it? I don't mind it, but I think it's too powerful. I just imagine driving east on Kirkwood and seeing a backlit musical sign there, which I think would be terrible. I don't want to, yeah. I think as long as it's subtle, 00:36:12.866 --> 00:36:40.030 - I have no issues with it. And I actually kind of, if it's very subtle, I like that harkening back to the building before. But as Duncan said, that was a mural that was painted 30 years ago and it was faded and it's, you know. Didn't really last that long. Yeah. So I think we've got a motion to continue and I, Jack seconded? That is correct. Okay. 00:36:41.282 --> 00:37:08.958 - The table is to continue COA 2534 to the next meeting of the HPC so the petitioner can bring additional information requested by the commission. We'll go ahead and vote on that. Jack Baker? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. 00:37:09.954 --> 00:37:39.422 - And that motion to table to the next meeting has been approved by the vote. Thank you. Appreciate it. OK. Next item, COA application 2535. Petitioner is Zach Hawk. This is for 1308 and 1310 East Atwater in the Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner present. 00:37:39.778 --> 00:38:08.670 - I believe the petitioner is present. There you go. 1308 and 1310 East Atwater is a buff brick, four square duplex. Some windows have been replaced as well as the front doors. The limestone steps have been replaced with wood. A two-story wood staircase has been added to the rear of the building, which is accessible from two center doors on the back of the second story. 00:38:09.314 --> 00:38:34.270 - Every side of the building is visible to the public right of way from either streets or alleys, so the proposed replacement of all the windows would require a comprehensive review. The primary facade is located to the north, so more flexible review may be permissible for the south elevation. The proposal is for the replacement of the 00:38:34.818 --> 00:39:03.198 - steel front right door with fiberglass replacement designed to resemble the original wood window on the left hand side if you're facing the house from the street and the replacement of all of the windows with aluminum finished windows of the same size and operation either double hung or casement to match the existing operation as well as the 00:39:03.362 --> 00:39:30.878 - Removal of the rear stairs the shingling of the back walkway and the replacement of the rear doors to the roof with I believe casement windows and stone sills Here's some photos we were sent of 00:39:31.682 --> 00:39:58.014 - Doors and windows throughout the house. You can see back doors leading onto the balcony and back porch. There's, as you'll see in the packet, it delineates to some extent which of the windows are replacement and where there is some damage to windows throughout the house. 00:40:04.450 --> 00:40:33.246 - And this is the proposed fiberglass replacement front door for, I believe, 1308. Okay. Staff recommends the conditional approval of the replacement of the front steel door, the removal of the rear staircase and the re-shingling of the walkway. District guidelines indicate that repairable windows should be retained and unreparable windows should be replaced in kind with wood. 00:40:33.634 --> 00:40:59.614 - if that is the same material. The last hand rental inspection conducted in 2022 under previous ownership indicated three necessary window repairs, a broken lower sash on the north window on the east wall in the living room, loose window glass on the north wall of the second story northeast bedroom, and unsecure window latches in the second story center and northeast bedrooms. 00:41:00.994 --> 00:41:28.670 - Most of the window issues reported in the hand inspection and the petitioner's inspection are repairable with replacement glass balances and sashes and weather stripping. Some of the storm windows are damaged and may need to be replaced. The front metal door to 1308 is unoriginal and was replaced in the 2010s. The proposed replacement, while not of the same material as the original, closely matches it in design and color and would be a visual improvement 00:41:29.186 --> 00:41:59.070 - based on accurate documentation of historic features. Although the rear staircase is not an original feature, the doors to the rear balcony appear close in nature to the house. Because this is a secondary facade visible from alleyways and has been identified as a possible safety concern, more flexible interpretation of the guidelines should be considered for the removal of these features and the installation of windows and stone sills in close to design to adjacent windows. This is the petitioner of anything you'd like to add. 00:42:00.770 --> 00:42:29.566 - And then take it off the back structure balcony and turn it back to basically a Rizzo from the beginning. So that's about it. All right. Questions? Elizabeth, you have questions? You want to replace one door with a... 00:42:29.858 --> 00:42:57.118 - The original door is wood. So why not replace that other door with wood? I'm just curious, with a wood door. The door to the right of the home has actually been replaced with a steel door, as we're looking at here. I don't feel that that was actually done right. Whoever did that should have went back with a fiberglass or a wood door. The one on the left, I'm going back with a fiberglass door to make it look more original. 00:42:59.682 --> 00:43:24.510 - What I would try to do is try to get it to match the right side as much as I could on that there. So I figured since somebody let them do the steel door on the right, it was okay to do the fiberglass on the left to make it look original and hold up a lot longer. Wood, yeah, it's a great thing. It's covered there. We could put a wood door in there to match that. Actually, we could, but that's the reason why I did that before. 00:43:31.554 --> 00:43:59.870 - clarification you are asking to replace all the windows not just the three that were identified in the hand inspection? At first I looked at it when I went to the house and went through every window and I have every picture of every window I really didn't think it was going to be that bad until I started walking through the house and then I started finding as we can see on there now the rotted sills, rotted sashes, those are basically a non-merry-pair form 00:44:00.194 --> 00:44:29.118 - all the way throughout. There's college kids dating there right now, and it's actually a safety issue as well. Well, there's single pain, but with the deterioration of the sashes and also the frames alone, the windows won't open up properly for egress alone. I tested everything all the way through. I spent probably several hours, and the more I found, I was given the benefit of the doubt when I went through. But yeah, those pictures, they don't lie, actually. They're right on it. You're welcome. 00:44:30.786 --> 00:44:59.614 - question. Your recommendation talks about re-shingling of the rear walkway. Point that out to me, would you please? Okay, so you can see back here, this is on the second story at the back of the house, there's like a little balcony on the rear roof to the bump out here. So if the staircase were to be removed, 00:44:59.874 --> 00:45:26.654 - Part of the petitioner's request is to re-shingle this back sort of balcony patio area to match the pitch and materials of the rear roof. So again, this is a more sort of close-up. Removing the back walkway or the stairway up in front of the house, 00:45:26.754 --> 00:45:55.742 - wood stairs, wood steps upright that were replacement for stone that was there at one time. On the front of the home? Yes, on the street side. I see not part of our scope of work there. Part of the scope? Yeah, that's not with us on that one. Just the back part. So this was recently acquired by someone in there? Or you just got thrown into it now? Yeah, no, no, no. It was Jeff Raleigh-Noel's previously. 00:45:55.842 --> 00:46:24.990 - And Bill Hong is the new owner. So we're being asked to approve replacing all of the windows, is that correct? That's correct. And of a type that closely matches the current windows? But are they vinyl type window? They're actually appellate reserve, and they're actually honored by the historical society throughout the United States, is what they actually are. 00:46:25.154 --> 00:46:46.718 - There will be a little cloud on the outside because I can't find, you can't find a wood window now, interior and exterior. But through Pelley you can't, and through Geraldwood I can't find one on that there. There will be primed on the exterior and natural wood on the interior. 00:46:46.818 --> 00:47:14.462 - You won't really lose any as far as your opening size of the windows. We'll go back. It's going to look as much original as possible within the newer age, of course, to that alone. There is a mistake I made on there, though, that I called it today. I don't think anybody's seen it. These are going to be single hongs. We want to look original as much as possible on there, not double hongs. So the single hongs, the top will be stationary. The bottom will move, just like it is now. 00:47:15.522 --> 00:47:43.838 - I didn't submit that. I apologize. Gotcha. OK, thank you. Karen? Yes, I have a couple of questions about the back. I was trying to figure that out. So at the top of the stairway, the walkway that you had answered Jack's question there, was that originally a balcony before the stairway was added? No. 00:47:44.802 --> 00:48:03.262 - What was going on there with the doors? What did they open onto? What somebody tried to do. Those were actually, I don't know what they actually opened up onto, to be honest with you, on that there. I think it was just an egress to the roof. I don't know what they had there before. OK, there's no photograph. Yeah. 00:48:05.314 --> 00:48:32.990 - evidence of drawings or anything that shows. So I was told that I had to put those two doors right there. I couldn't go back with two doors there, which basically, so I was told I had to go back with, for egress, two casement windows. Casement windows actually give you a larger egress, so they crank out. They did need access to the outside. They could get out onto that roof right there. So our proposal is taking everything off. There's a limestone still that runs down 00:48:33.186 --> 00:48:59.902 - By the side of that, you can't see that they have removed. We put the limestone sill back and then put our own coring roofing on top there to make it look, take it back to redstone. OK. And this is, if I understand Noah's conditional approval, that you're including replacement of these doors with the windows, I mean, because of the safety concern. Is that right? 00:49:00.194 --> 00:49:29.150 - Yeah, although we might need a little more clarification about, you know, operation and dimensions of those windows. But I think that would be probably part and parcel with the removal of the rear staircase and re-shingling of that roof. OK, thank you. You're welcome. Good questions. It looks like on those doors again, it looks like you have to step down into the room. Yes. So those were originally windows? I think so. 00:49:29.378 --> 00:49:58.110 - They didn't raise their windows. Yeah. Yeah. And then they patched on it. And the current windows don't open enough to provide the egress required by code? Well, I would think they would, but I was told they wouldn't. I couldn't put a regular double hung in there, a regular single hung in there. I need to go back because now they've made an egress. So we've got to go back with an egress as far as a, you know, case for window gives you a lot more egress. Yeah. 00:49:59.234 --> 00:50:25.438 - a more clear opening. Yeah, correct. So the idea is to put a casement window in the rough opening that will be left with that little chopped off doors. Correct. And just a single pane, no dividers or anything on the casements. No lids or anything like that. It'd be a full view, yeah, not lids, but it'd be a full view glass right there. Any other questions, Dr? 00:50:29.666 --> 00:50:58.974 - It doesn't make sense to me in terms of code that those other windows wouldn't provide that egress. If they're too small, then they won't count. My guess is when they went in for an occupancy permit, whatever the code was at that time, they were not able to get egress through those existing double hunks or single hunks. And so they did that crazy. 00:50:59.970 --> 00:51:27.902 - That's my guess, and that crazy balcony thing. I thought they were just put in so they could divide the house up in more apartments. Well, that too. I mean, the reason I bring it up is because I've worked in a lot of houses and gone through the code issue with egress and a single hung window of, I don't know exactly how big those are, but these always seem to be adequate. It's like 30, I can't remember the measurement now, 00:51:29.730 --> 00:51:56.574 - I can look it up, but that, you know, they've actually got to be pretty, pretty wide. That's where you get kicked in the deep is the width of the rough opening. And I don't think any of, like just looking at those guys. I'm just trying to search out a better solution than two full glass windows, which I think aren't going to match up very well. Yeah. I mean, you could do a one over one on a casement. 00:51:58.146 --> 00:52:27.326 - And that would mitigate it a little bit. But sorry, we're getting a commentary. And on the windows. Well, I'll save that for comments, I guess. OK. Any other questions? I'm going to go over windows. When I replaced the windows, did you explore repairing the windows? They're in non-repair form throughout the house. 80% of it's non-repair form. Yeah, that's a safety issue throughout. I don't actually do the repairs. 00:52:27.554 --> 00:52:56.126 - we replace them is what my company does. And so, um, who, who determined that the windows are not repairable? I actually, that's why I submitted the scope of work into the pictures to the committee here because he can, I did. Oh yeah. When you, when you run across these windows and if you're looking at the pictures right there, now you get an air filtration, but, 00:52:56.482 --> 00:53:23.518 - See that one up there on the left, that sash that's rotted right there? OK, that's rotted pretty much all the way through. The bottom one there, you're getting frame rot. And so could you put a Band-Aid on them for a while? They're going to get worse. We could put a Band-Aid on them, I guess. That one there, too, it's rotted out. Therefore, the glass is going to start falling out of the window. That's hard to repair right there. Right. 00:53:23.874 --> 00:53:53.054 - Just to clarify, you're a contractor. Mm-hmm. Right, sir. And any experience in repairing windows? Wooden windows like this? No. Okay. Not really. I mean, we've made adjustments to windows over the years. We have. Right. But when it comes down to this, when we're taking the windows out and they fall apart in their hands, and it's a risk to sometimes even their installers, you've got college kids in there, and that's a risk to them as well. Mm-hmm. Right. 00:53:53.154 --> 00:54:15.998 - I wouldn't let my kids stay there. I've worked for IU for years. I think you answered the question about not being able to find wooden windows. Yeah, they are wood. They just have aluminum clad on the exterior is what they have. That's all they have. All right. 00:54:17.154 --> 00:54:42.654 - Have we heard anything from the Elm Heights Design Review Committee on this one? I'd sent this to them, but I haven't heard any specific comments back. Okay. Would you be willing to let a contingent of the AHPC come on down and poke at your falling apart windows? Yeah. As the summer started to get closing in, so it takes me a while to get windows on this. There's no problem with that in mind. 00:54:42.850 --> 00:55:11.806 - Like I said, these windows here are honored by the Historical Society of the U.S. I'm not trying to go get you. The kids are going to be coming back to school for too long, so I'm worried about the turnaround time and getting windows. I've had a student rental and I look at them as like my kids when they get older, so I hear you. All right. I don't think I've got any other questions. I am willing to entertain emotion. 00:55:23.714 --> 00:55:51.998 - Hearing none, I think I would, if the petitioner is willing, I'd like to split this one into giving approval for the removal of the back stair, the re-shingling, and the front door and pull out the windows contingent on a site visit from the HPC. 00:55:53.634 --> 00:56:21.342 - Is that? I mean, that's workable. If that is something that could work with you to have people visit at some point. I mean, I'm the mercy of the mercy of this. You guys are here, so that's fine. I mean, that's the thing. If you feel more comfortable than that, that's fine. I'm just saying that delaying it more is going to... How soon are you available? I can come by tomorrow. Absolutely. Oh, OK. Let's call that done. Thank you. 00:56:21.666 --> 00:56:46.558 - And if anybody else wants to tag along and is available, that would be lovely. So I will move that we, this is to approve the removal of the stair, the reshingling of the roof, the replacement of the front door. And we're going to, what's the word? Table this till the next meeting. 00:56:47.330 --> 00:57:15.326 - forward it to the next meeting. Continue this to the next meeting. Which one? Well, that's going to be a little challenging because you're going to have a COA number that has three things approved from this meeting. And then it might be better to just take these three and approve the COA with these three and then come back with the application for the windows themselves and get a separate approval on that. Would you be willing to do that, sir? I mean, yeah. I mean, like I said, mercy. 00:57:15.522 --> 00:57:41.502 - on that there. So basically what we're going to do is approve the backs very well. Approve everything about the windows. I'll come and look at the windows tomorrow and I'll do that with these folks. Very good. And I mean, for the subsequent application, I have the materials that you sent me on the windows and the ones you're planning on using. If we have new questions about, you know, materials to add, you can send that in with the application, but I don't see a reason to resubmit stuff that you've already sent to me. 00:57:41.986 --> 00:58:11.966 - So you could just update the pack and we'll give it a new COA number so you get a separate approval. I get that the lead time on ordering windows is, that's what's, that's, yeah. I'm more comfortable with that as well. Okay. So do I have a second? Yeah, second. Are we all clear about what you're seconding? Yeah. Okay. We have some clarification on the wording of the motion. Okay. This is for COA, what's the number 2535 for the, everything excluding the windows. 00:58:12.994 --> 00:58:40.478 - The windows are going to be under a separate COA. And Maudie had seconded that motion. I think it was a bit less. Thank you. OK, so the motion on the table has been approved. It's going to stay under COA 2535. We'll go ahead with a vote by Schaffaker. Was the wording on that table or forward? 00:58:40.962 --> 00:59:10.334 - We're actually separating it, so you're approving everything except for the windows. Pull it all out. Exactly. Going back to the voting, Renard Cross? Yes. Sandra Soler? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. That motion is approved. 5-0, again, that's motion on COA 25-35, approving everything except for excluding the windows, which will come back under a new COA. 00:59:12.642 --> 00:59:39.102 - Talk to this guy and he'll get he'll get us in touch. This is a tricky district for windows. Yeah absolutely I understand. Thank you sir. Okay. Next item COA 2536 for 322 East Kirkwood Avenue. 00:59:40.898 --> 01:00:06.910 - The petitioner is here online and I can ask her to unmute. Petitioner is Layla Taylor. This is the Kirkwood Manor Historic District. Another John Nichols building at 322 East Kirkwood Avenue. Two and a half story free classical limestone commercial and residential building. The building is individually listed as outstanding in the state survey. 01:00:07.746 --> 01:00:36.958 - The request here is for the installation of a front lit 13 square foot channel letter sign over the entrance to Parlor Donuts, which is at the north entrance to the south L. The channel would be installed in the grout between the stones using as many of the existing holes as possible, as well as the existing 01:00:39.074 --> 01:01:05.086 - Electrical hookup. Staff recommends approval of COA 2536. The proposed signage is modest in scale and does not obscure significant features on the building. The materials will be lightweight and attached at several points to the mortar rather than drilled into the structural stone wall. 01:01:05.858 --> 01:01:29.918 - Historically, signs on the Kirkwood Manor building have not been internally lit, so this may warrant some consideration. There is already an exterior outlet over the door where the signage would be installed. Does the petitioner have anything to add? The only other thing I just wanted to note is that the only part of the sign that would illuminate are the letters themselves. 01:01:36.674 --> 01:02:04.766 - Questions? Let's start with you, Renard. No questions. Duncan, you have questions? So track mounted, that means that each of what I'm seeing as a white outline rectangle is mounted to a track that's mounted to the building? That's correct. And it's back lit? Where's the source of light? 01:02:10.370 --> 01:02:40.190 - on the interior hands of the letters themselves. Okay, thank you. Gary, any questions? No questions. Yeah, questions. Materials, what are each of these letter boxes made of? I would assume it's some sort of a plastic or is it glass? It would be metal casing and then you'd have an acrylic base. Ah, so it's a basically a metal box with a 01:02:40.290 --> 01:03:02.398 - a plastic of some sort face with lettering, is that correct? Correct. And then the interior lighting, the actual light itself, is that LED or incandescent? It would be LED. And is there other signage on the building? 01:03:12.226 --> 01:03:41.214 - this time, however, that SOMA sign, the projecting one that you see in the left photo, is part of Harler-Donut's signage area. Because I believe there's a clothing shop just around the corner. If you look at that center picture, isn't there a clothing shop just around the corner or? There is. There is. And it doesn't have any signage above it? It does. 01:03:41.538 --> 01:04:10.686 - It does. Are we at all interested in matching signage or is that a concern? I'll just throw that out there. No more questions. Jack asked what I was going to ask. No questions. I have a question. How far does the sign project from the wall? It would be no more than, say, 01:04:11.874 --> 01:04:40.830 - The raceway is probably going to be about five inches. So I would say no more than six to eight at most. Thank you. Do we have any questions or comments from the public? Anyone online? All right. I will entertain a motion. I'll put out the motion that we're perfect. Do I have a second? 01:04:54.754 --> 01:05:24.670 - second it. Let's talk about it. Comments, Elizabeth? Melody? I do wish we had images of the other signs. It's a little hard to compare. You can click on the Google map there. And while you're pulling that up, my only other comment was, 01:05:24.898 --> 01:05:40.862 - I didn't know how crucial this was about typically signs on the Kirkwood Manor building have not been internally lit. So I wanted us to maybe talk through what's the impact of changing that. 01:05:56.610 --> 01:06:14.750 - Currently, we've got these two SOMA signs. This had been the parlor sign. It was installed without a COA, so it's been removed. 01:06:27.938 --> 01:06:52.254 - Moonstone sign. I don't know if that's wood or vinyl. I think it's wood. I think it is. I think TDs is the same thing. That's interior. No, it's on the building. 01:07:01.410 --> 01:07:29.662 - I don't think there's anything on the alley side. I don't think so. Let's check it out. Nope. All right. Thank you. Jack, comments? Yeah. This gets in the strange territory. We're under the signage. What am I trying to say? The downtown signage. 01:07:30.530 --> 01:07:59.422 - rules, I assume here, and it meets those apparently. Is that correct? As far as I believe as far as planning is concerned, but this isn't in the Courtauld Square Historic District or the other nearest one would be Restaurant Row. So I'm deferring to National Park Service standards here. This is his own district. Yeah. 01:08:00.034 --> 01:08:29.822 - It's, first I looked at it and the letter, the letters themselves put me off. And this is just, this may be just personal. I don't like the look of the sign, but when you showed me the view of the building from Kirkwood and the other business and the sign that they had out, how can I say something about this sign when that other sign exists? So I, you know, I can't, 01:08:29.986 --> 01:08:59.486 - I'm not going to make a comment about that or make it any kind of condition. I do worry a little bit about the lighting level. If this could be very bright or this could be dim or something in between, and I think we would want to make sure that it's not something that's going to be too bright for the area. It's not meant to light the area. It's just meant to show up. I don't know how to, that gets into a, could get into a cat fight as well, and I don't want to 01:08:59.682 --> 01:09:25.694 - push that too, but I just want to consider it. I would admonish the donuts people to look at that sign and make sure it is not too bright for their customers as they walk. And you don't want to walk down Kirkwood and have that thing attack you in the eye at night. Something nice and soft, I think, is more. That's all I have. 01:09:36.546 --> 01:10:02.654 - about the lighting you know it could it's such an elegant building you don't want a tacky sign or anything that even tends in that direction I don't it depends how bright it is I guess I don't know I'm not wild about it 01:10:06.274 --> 01:10:34.366 - Well, it seems like we always sort of have to face this with historic buildings because most of the lighting technologies now are backlit and everybody wants his or her identity foremost because they're trying to run their business. And so there's always this sort of, I'll call it, discompatibility between the modern effort to commercialize and the original presence of the building. 01:10:35.202 --> 01:11:05.054 - Initially, when we talked about the courthouse square, we considered no backlit signs and only artificially lit signs so that they had lights out over them. As a matter of fact, I think that's what was here earlier when this was the burrito place. Just because of the ability to control the light and the light fixture itself could be more historically compatible to the building. 01:11:05.858 --> 01:11:30.878 - It's kind of an easy thing to do. So I mean, I can't think of a case in which we haven't considered the kinds of things that Jack was saying out loud. And my own take on it, no offense to the commercial entity, is that these signs don't last very long because businesses come and go so fast. 01:11:31.362 --> 01:12:00.446 - that I've sort of given up trying to regulate them or regularize them. There was talk at one time about having all the lettering around the square be the same, which is so homogenized it's inappropriate in itself. And so I've just sort of, you know, my biggest objection is the backlit signs for the reason that Jack says, because they're almost always lit a single way. You can't change the bulbs. You can't really turn them up or down. 01:12:00.578 --> 01:12:29.278 - And they're almost always too bright, which is the point. So unless you can do something about the way it's lit, you really can't control that aspect of it. And that's the problem with backlit signs is they're almost all plastic or some acrylic, and they're almost always too bright. Go ahead. 01:12:29.922 --> 01:12:57.022 - I'm looking at the guidelines here. And in that first point, it says signs should work with the building rather than against it. And I think the sign works against the building. I mean, it's a huge building, so I don't necessarily think it obscures any historical feature of the building. 01:13:00.834 --> 01:13:29.502 - It says here, sign should be compatible with those of the historic buildings. I don't think it meets that criteria. I think it doesn't complement the building. Again, it's too bright. It's plastic. I think it's a distraction, really. 01:13:30.658 --> 01:13:59.870 - And with regards to the signage on the other building, I don't believe we should use that as a, allow those other signs to set a precedent. If it is that we don't believe that those signs are appropriate, then perhaps we should do something about those and not approve this one because those signs are equally as ugly. I can't support this. So, devil's advocate, since we're in comments, what would you change on the sign to make it appropriate 01:14:00.962 --> 01:14:28.766 - I would probably use some kind of natural material. I would have the source of light not be within the sign, something like Duncan suggested that could be, I don't know, like the sign from the top or from the side or some kind of material and in a style that complements this, the historic sense of the building. That's what I would suggest that you 01:14:34.434 --> 01:15:03.582 - I'm not a lighting engineer, but they exist. I wonder if Noah, could you possibly, if we forward this, have some people you could talk with that could specify lighting levels for this sort of signage so that it is not overly bright. 01:15:04.034 --> 01:15:32.830 - Ooh, that takes me back to when I was learning about lighting levels. There is in the UDO criteria for the allowable level of light trespass onto adjacent properties, but not onto public way. Oh, that's true. We do also have somebody from the planning department here. Oh, goody. OK. Is that what I said, true? Yes, there is. Oh, good. Sorry to volunteer you, Joe. 01:15:34.306 --> 01:15:57.662 - So there actually is, for sign elimination, the DUEO states that sign lighting shall imply white trespass regulations, and those regulations state... Sorry, give me a second. 01:16:08.802 --> 01:16:38.398 - Lighting fixtures shall be installed so light trespass from any property line, except property abutting a public street, shall not exceed one foot candle at a point one meter beyond the property line. So in this case, every abutting property is a public right of way, where this face is anyway. That's right next to a outdoor patio, which is until well into the evening of the day. 01:16:38.562 --> 01:17:08.350 - Could I get a clarification from the petitioner? You had stated earlier that the only light would be through the letters. So the white part would be solid and not glowing. It's just the blue part that would be lit. That is correct. Our plan would be to use perforated material, perforated vinyl on the faces so they would look blue during the day and they would eliminate white at night. So the letters would be white at night, not 01:17:08.450 --> 01:17:38.334 - Blue. Correct. So what would the white part be? What? What would the white part be at night? It would be dark, because it's dark outside. You wouldn't see it. It's not lit. It's opaque. Yeah, OK. That's what I was trying to get at. I have one other question of clarification for the petitioner. 01:17:38.530 --> 01:18:07.390 - There are existing holes up there from previous signs. And what I would like to see done is to fill all of the holes in the masonry and not use any existing holes in the masonry, regardless, but only attached to grout joints. Would you be willing to deal with that? Absolutely. Yeah, we can do that. Thank you. All right. 01:18:08.034 --> 01:18:34.430 - It's going to be interesting. I think everything's out on the table. There's a motion. It's been seconded. We can vote that through and see where we are. And clarifying that we're going to be voting on staff's approval on this. It would be commission approval. I'm sorry, commission's approval on this. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure there weren't any changes. 01:18:34.754 --> 01:19:04.446 - OK, we'll go ahead and take a vote on COA 2536 as moved. Jack Baker? No. Reynard Cross? No. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? No. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. So we have two yes. 01:19:04.770 --> 01:19:33.054 - three no's, no abstentions, so it is not approved. All right. Well, I think thank you for coming in, but I think you probably have to come back with a sign, which I'm guessing is lit from the outside. And we're happy to talk to you outside of this if you want to meet with me or with me and Noah. Just give him a shout. OK, yes, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you. For sure. 01:19:37.858 --> 01:19:59.806 - Moving on to demolition delay. First item, demolition delay 2510 at 711 East Cottage Grove, petitioners value-built construction. Are you looking for something? The piece of paper that we read. Oh, here you go. 01:20:03.170 --> 01:20:28.382 - Built in the 1910s, 711 East Cottage Grove is a pyramidal roof cottage with two gabled L's and a wraparound porch on two sides with four wooden columns. Most of the exterior materials have been replaced, although the house retains its general form and limestone retaining wall. The house's first owners were dressmaker Mary McCain and her husband Horace, who was a cabinetmaker at Showers Furniture Company. 01:20:30.018 --> 01:20:59.486 - They moved out in the 1920s, and the house saw a succession of renters ever since. The longest term tenant, Bessie Harrell, was a widowed elementary school teacher who occupied the house from 1936 to 1945 with her daughter. Until 1969, most of the occupants were workers, including painters, engineers, teachers, and salespeople. From the 1970s on, the house has been rented to students. Unfortunately, most of their names are not recorded in censuses or 01:20:59.874 --> 01:21:29.790 - directories. Staff recommends the release of demolition delay 2510. Is the petitioner here? Do you have anything to add? Nope. All right. Questions? Elizabeth? One of those. Yeah. Welcome back. Yeah. Thank you. No questions, because I've already decided. 01:21:30.402 --> 01:21:58.558 - No questions. Belly? Question? No. Erin, do you have any questions? Is that a limestone foundation there to the right, below the room to the right of the porch? I believe there is. And I know there's a, it still has a chimney. I assume an original chimney. 01:22:03.746 --> 01:22:33.630 - What did you mean Noah when you said most of the exterior materials have been replaced? Are you including the porch? Mostly in terms of siding and windows and some of the actually porch columns. Those are still wood columns I'm guessing. So windows and siding. 01:22:40.226 --> 01:23:08.318 - No questions. Do we have any questions or comments from the public? Yes, sir. What's your name? My name is James Ford. I've lived in this neighborhood for 25 years. I'm sure that I'm the only one here who's lived close to this house. I see this house every day. I work at IU. I go to the chemistry department. Prior to that, I worked at the post office sorting mail. Prior to that, I worked at Odell and Boyer and Shook Architects. I've been thinking about buildings. 01:23:08.578 --> 01:23:35.582 - and addresses in Bloomington for many years. Just because something's old doesn't mean it should be saved. But also, just because something's old, it doesn't need to be torn down. There doesn't seem to be any reason to tear this down. It's in a nice neighborhood. There are several houses with the same style in this area. There's very few of these awful student buildings that have been put up in this area. 01:23:36.546 --> 01:24:03.838 - which I think is what's going to happen. If this is torn down, somebody's going to put up a 15-student apartment building with no parking, and it'll just damage further the neighborhood, which is really a beautiful place. You should walk around there in the evenings and see how nice it is. Still, it's one of the few places that are left that are kind of nice. The same owner tore down a house that was next to, on 10th Street recently, 01:24:04.770 --> 01:24:29.982 - Next to where Hogi Karmaka was born, she tore the house down and put up one of these student housing units. I don't know why we need so many student housing units. And I don't know where this information is coming from. As far as I know, the Ferris has built this house and owned it until Dr. Ferris sold it to the cardiologist in the 90s. 01:24:31.778 --> 01:25:00.574 - They didn't live in it. They rented it. They lived next door at 709 East Cottage Grove. But this was the rental. And they rented it to Earl Hettle, who raised his family there in the teens and 20s. He raised seven children there. It was a family home for a long time. It's just been rented the last few decades to students. I just see no reason that they need to tear it down. 01:25:01.090 --> 01:25:29.246 - It's not as if it's falling apart. They just put on a new roof. It looks good. If you go online, you can rent this house for the 26, 27 school year. They're still offering it for rent. It doesn't appear on any of the Sanborn maps. I looked at this earlier today, the early ones, because Sanborn, for some reason, didn't include this neighborhood. This is University Park's addition. 01:25:29.538 --> 01:25:58.334 - It is in the city directory, and you can find the information of who is living in the house. Not necessarily who owned the house, but who was living in the house at the time. So I'm not sure. I know that the McCain's, I think they lived across the street, and one of the directories had them in this typo. Anyway, I hope that the Historic Commission recognizes that this is a nice house, and it should be kept, and it should be preserved, 01:25:58.914 --> 01:26:26.622 - Because the neighborhood is still a livable neighborhood for people who actually live in the neighborhood long term. Thank you. Have you spoken to BRI about this house? This house, no. But I did talk to him earlier. 01:26:28.930 --> 01:26:58.046 - earlier this week, and I just actually sent him an email. I usually let him know before I take anything down that he can go and ransack it. Thank you. All right. We did have a conversation about moving houses, and basically I told him that any house that we do, like if he has somebody looking for houses, he's welcome to propose it. His problem was that Steve basically said that he needs 01:26:59.106 --> 01:27:22.078 - years to like of it on like a record because it's so far few and far between like he needs like certainty and like long periods of times of actually under contract in order to have a chance to make it happen. All right. I will entertain a motion. 01:27:28.482 --> 01:27:57.982 - Before I entertain a motion, I'd like to explain something. In this case, we have two choices. By law, we have two choices. One is to release this and let them tear it down. The other one is to recommend this house and this house alone to be designated to the Common Council as its own historic district. 01:27:59.362 --> 01:28:28.926 - we have to be very careful how we do that. I live in a neighborhood that's very walkable and one of those still great places to live in Bloomington. And one way of protecting the neighborhood that you love is to organize your neighborhood and get them to be excited about becoming an historic district. And then 01:28:29.506 --> 01:28:56.926 - you will have some protections. But the only choices we have before us legally right now are to allow this to be torn down or to recommend it to the common council for designation. That's legally our only two paths. If the people who built the house were provenance in Bloomington, isn't that somehow connected to why a building might be designated historic? 01:28:57.346 --> 01:29:25.534 - Ferris family came here 200 years ago, starting next year. It's the anniversary. He was involved with the Underground Railroad. He has had his farm at the north part of town, which is now the stadium. He had another building in 2001 East Hillside, which was where the Underground Railroad presumably is associated. Ferris Meat Market, maybe some people remember the Ferris Meat Market. It's the same family. 01:29:25.858 --> 01:29:55.102 - It's the kind of family that's like the chrysmallises, where they have nicks and they have doctors and they're all over the place. And the pharises are the same way. So it's something to think about. Elizabeth, you know anything about the... I know exactly what he's talking about. Yeah. Is it something you believe 01:29:55.842 --> 01:30:23.678 - a credible case could be made around? Oh, for sure. Yeah, with the Ferris family? Oh, yeah. Covenators and, yeah, that's something I've been working on for years. Yeah, the Ferrises is, without a doubt, part of the underground railroad here. Ferrises is dismissed, but definitely the Ferris. Reverend Ferris came here with that. They were Covenators. They left North Carolina because of that. I just personally, 01:30:24.450 --> 01:30:50.142 - I would like to do it. You said I can't see tearing a perfectly good house down. It doesn't make sense. I can't wrap my brain around that. And I know what it's all about. But that's a pretty house. It is historic associated with the Ferris family. The other house you talked about, definitely underground railroad. Yes. Yeah. So even without that, 01:30:51.906 --> 01:31:20.606 - I can't see tearing this house down. It doesn't make sense in my mind to do that. So if there's a way that we could send it somewhere, Sam made a great suggestion, your neighborhood needs to come together to save your neighborhood. Other than that, we only got one other choice if we choose to, and I recommend we do that. Are you going to make a motion? Sure, I'll make a motion to send it to the council. For designation? 01:31:20.898 --> 01:31:48.542 - Yeah, the designated historic. Yeah. Is the motion to just deny it, then that happens automatically, or you have to make a motion to send it? I got to deny it first? Or how do I do that? That's whatever it takes to say no. It's what I want to do. Yeah. That's what I'm trying to say. OK. But I do think that your motion would need to say what you want to do with the property. So you would deny the application to make a motion 01:31:49.282 --> 01:31:58.046 - I'll just make the whole thing. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And that gives it interim protection, right, while that process goes through. 01:32:13.986 --> 01:32:33.246 - I would go ahead and say that. I would say your motion is to deny this application and to send this to the council for historic designation. I make a motion to deny this demolition and have this sent to the Common Council for historic designation. Do I have a second? Second. 01:32:39.458 --> 01:33:07.166 - The motion is to deny the demolition. Oh, yes. That's my bad. My bad. Somebody's got to keep me in line. Comments. I mean, we have been having some comments, but we've got a motion on the table, and let's talk about it. I agree that we should try to save. 01:33:07.458 --> 01:33:36.318 - these houses as they come off. I've said that before. We're put in a position as commissioners of not really have a position. We can either say yes and allow the house to be torn down or do whatever he wants to with it. Or we can say no and it goes to the council and there is great reluctance to do that, great fear, I think. 01:33:36.674 --> 01:34:03.902 - sending it to the council. We were worried about, I don't know exactly what we're worried about there, but the apparently bad things have happened and there is some reluctance to send these things on to council for fear of some sort of retribution. I don't know what it is. So we're in a position then of saying no or abstain and I, as a commissioner, I want to participate. I don't want to just back out of 01:34:04.258 --> 01:34:27.326 - vote and abstain and leave it to others, but voting no puts us in some jeopardy and I would like some explanation of that at some point, but I'm going to vote no on this and take the chance that the House can be saved. I fully agree that it's worth saving and other 01:34:27.522 --> 01:34:56.190 - It's just too easy to say yes and allowed to be torn down. And that's what we've been doing. We haven't really fought it. I don't know if it's a battle that can be fought. But anyway, I'm interested in learning. I'd like to know if we have, do we have other examples of houses where the original siding has been changed and the windows? 01:34:56.962 --> 01:35:25.246 - have been taken out and the house gets approved for designation. They have to be notable or outstanding. They don't have to be notable or outstanding. Generally, there's a stronger case to be made if they are. So if something is rated contributing, and at least this is how it usually works for the National Register of Historic Places, its chances are it won't be eligible architecturally. 01:35:25.378 --> 01:35:55.134 - there would have to be a strong case that there's some other area of significance either related to somebody who lived there or some event that took place there. There's something along the lines of that. And the criteria for designation in Bloomington are slightly different from the ones that are used for the National Register, but more or less consider either architecture, the significance of the building to the landscape of the town, or 01:35:55.650 --> 01:36:24.766 - some sort of historic significance related to people or events. I concur with what he said. I mean, the issues of, you know, really, it's been said, but the best way to protect these houses is to put them in districts. I mean, that's really where our purview 01:36:25.026 --> 01:36:52.606 - has clout. And so I think the Cottage Grove area should have done this a long time ago, but the need isn't going to go away. They still need to do that. The problem says, as Noah said, I mean, there's an integrity basis for designation. So you could argue this house has lost some of its integrity because the windows have all been replaced and it's got vinyl siding on it. It's probably got the original siding under it. 01:36:53.314 --> 01:37:22.782 - I was asking him about it because it looked to me like the porch was all original. And certainly the configuration of the house is original. So I don't get too stuck on integrity issues when houses are that old, because it's just very unusual that they're not altered to that extent. Alterations themselves are not a negative. We're fighting for people to maintain their houses, and then we argue with them about how to do it. 01:37:23.874 --> 01:37:53.534 - And I think this Ferris angle is strong. I don't have any doubt about it. I don't think, generally speaking, a contributing house in a non-designated district is not going to typically have standalone authority as its own historic district. I mean, it almost always does have to be notable or outstanding, and even then it's difficult. 01:37:53.698 --> 01:38:19.326 - Kirkwood Manor is a good example. So it wasn't that easy to get that building designated. And it's phenomenal by comparison. And I also personally believe, and I think Elizabeth alluded to this, is we need to stand up for these unimportant buildings because the predators are in town. 01:38:19.586 --> 01:38:49.566 - And they're taking them away from us. And I'm sorry, but that's just the fact of redeveloping Bloomington. And it's a tragedy in many places, particularly in local neighborhoods where there are people who have lived their whole lives who trust their city government to protect their homestead. And I think we have obligations like that that are over and above the rules of historic preservation to some extent. 01:38:49.890 --> 01:39:16.286 - I'm thrilled to talk about this to City Council because I think the argument needs to be made. And as Jack suggested, this looks like a good example where we can stand up and be counted, not just sort of flipped away because it's not an important place. But it's a very complicated issue for us and for the city at large. 01:39:17.346 --> 01:39:43.838 - Nobody wants to say they don't want anything to change, and nobody wants to say no to the developing community that brings a lot of benefit to the town. Yes, sir? Respond to this woman's comment. It isn't original. The kitchen chimney was removed. There were two chimneys. The main chimney is still there, but the kitchen chimney is gone. And you'll notice on the back of that, 01:39:44.034 --> 01:40:13.758 - It's a little bit longer on the left side. That's an addition. If you go back over there and look at it, you can see how it has been added two additions in the back there. So it is not original. And the front porch has had some modifications too. It's not just about originality. It's about long-term integrity. That addition's 40 years old. It's historic. So in its own right, the change has become historic. In the very back of the property is a nice limestone 01:40:14.338 --> 01:40:42.366 - area that was used for cooking, and they don't see that here, but you should walk over there and see it. I'm sorry. I've got a motion on the floor. Yeah, and we're discussing it, but yeah, I agree. Conversation should be limited to the conversation. Again, most of these demolition delay issues that come before us, it would be difficult to make a case. I believe that this one lends itself to a 01:40:44.642 --> 01:41:13.950 - at least a really good effort on our part with regards to the connection to the Underground Railroad and other historical figures that live there. And I would be willing to support sending it to the council for this mission. Yeah, I want to sort of echo a little bit of what Duncan was saying that this would have a much better case were it part of a district. And that's where we shine. 01:41:14.626 --> 01:41:44.222 - And, you know, but there is a line where, is it worth doing? Maybe it is. Because some of the, I also want to sort of address what Jack was talking about. And I don't think there's retribution from the common council. I think that is a mischaracterization of the hesitancy or the caution that I sometimes advocate and others advocate. 01:41:44.450 --> 01:42:10.942 - I think there is a certain amount of political capital we have with the council and we have to be very deliberate about what we send there. We have to show up, we have to market this thing to them and tell them why. And if we don't, then there's no point. And we need neighborhood support 01:42:11.458 --> 01:42:41.182 - to make this happen if it's going to happen. Because it's not just us that we need. It's the council. And the council has, you know, they have agendas that will sometimes clash with ours and sometimes not. And I mean, we're all here to try and make Bloomington a better place and to hang on to what's worth hanging on to. And so the question we have to ask ourselves is, is this house 01:42:41.890 --> 01:43:04.158 - on its own merit worth that. And we have a motion on the table that says, yeah, I think it is. Anything from the public? Anything from anybody online? OK. Would you call the roll? Yes. 01:43:04.994 --> 01:43:34.910 - And remind us what we're voting on. Thank you very much. I wanted to clarify. So there is a motion on the table to deny the release of the demolition delay and actually make that motion where we would send, we make a recommendation to common council that this be its own historic district. Is that accurate? That motion has been moved and seconded and we'll go ahead and call the vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Renard Cross? 01:43:35.586 --> 01:44:02.270 - Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. Okay, that motion is approved, 5-0. Well, he's here for the next one as well. Yeah. Okay. 208 South Jefferson Street, demolition delay 25-11, value-built construction. Yes. It's 5.1, so we're going to work on it. Oh, sorry, that one's from last 01:44:02.658 --> 01:44:31.614 - You know what? It says 521 South Dunn in the packet. Yes. Yeah. You want to have an opinion on that house too? You can. You can see where I copied and pasted. Okay. 521 North Dunn. Yeah, this does not look like a South Jefferson house. Okay. That's fine. Built in 1925, 521 North Dunn is a pyramidal roofed cottage with a gabled L on the western half of the street facing facade. 01:44:32.322 --> 01:45:00.350 - Most of the exterior features, including windows and siding, have been replaced. The house has a rough limestone foundation with a cement slab porch. Between 1925 and 1948, the house frequently changed hands, being occupied by masons, insurance salesmen, and interior decorators. From 1948 to 1995, the house was owned by Ross and Mary Kurtz. Ross worked for 39 years as an office manager for Indiana Social Services. 01:45:00.802 --> 01:45:25.854 - was a World War II veteran and a member of both the Elks and the Masons. In 1934, at the age of 20, Ross Kurtz was charged with accessory to murder of Reverend Gaylord Saunders and his native Wabash, Indiana. Reverend Saunders was murdered by his wife, who he had threatened to kill, and a young man who he had met studying as an undertaker and who he had attempted to threaten into a sexual relationship. 01:45:27.138 --> 01:45:54.334 - The three plaintiffs were ruled not guilty of murder by reasons of insanity. And Ross was released after providing evidence to disposing of the murder weapon and having an affair with Reverend Saunders' wife. Ross and Mary Kurtz met in Wabash and moved to Bloomington, Indiana shortly after the trial. None of this took place in Bloomington. Staff recommends release of demolition delay 25-11. Again, this. 01:45:56.706 --> 01:46:26.078 - This is one of my favorite entries ever, I've just got to say. Why is this not a Lifetime movie? My daughter is very excited about this one. I'm like, oh lord. So nothing to add? No, I think he captured it. Questions? Elizabeth, you have questions? 01:46:29.538 --> 01:46:59.134 - Other than this, yeah. Is there any other significance about this house? Who owned it? Anything important to Bloomington? Because this certainly isn't, so. This one changed hands, or it changed occupants fewer times than the previous one that I looked at. 01:47:01.794 --> 01:47:30.910 - So for the bulk of its period of significance, it was occupied by the Kurtzes. You know, porch, different foundation, probably not original. I'm guessing that L was added onto or altered in some way. I do not find a lot about the other occupants. Mm-hmm. I don't have any other questions. OK. Questions? 01:47:31.490 --> 01:47:59.198 - We've got questions. It's always a question. Why? But that's all I have. Karen, Duncan, questions? You have a history in tabloid journalism. Do you know what my brother does for a living? I do, yeah. And I'm very grateful he does. No, I mean, you know. 01:47:59.938 --> 01:48:29.438 - There may be some unknown history here, but I don't know of any, but it's this. Yeah, I mean, we could talk all day about the facts of the case. Three insane people, that's pretty good. It's the same issue. It's the same issue we just don't have the Pharisees to count on. Yeah, and that's kind of huge. 01:48:35.490 --> 01:49:04.926 - No questions. No questions. No questions. Any questions or comments from the public? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. I'll move to release. DD25-11. Do I have a second? Second. 01:49:06.882 --> 01:49:35.358 - Do you want to talk about it? No. I don't. It's the same, probably. Yeah. I think we've probably talked about what the issues are on the last one, and it's with the absence of more firepower. I will, yeah, I guess we'll vote on this, and then we can call the vote. OK. So this would be on demolition delay, 25-11, which would be intended. We'll go ahead and take a vote. 01:49:35.522 --> 01:49:52.414 - A vote of yes would be to release the delay period. Jack Baker? Yes. Raynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. And that motion passes on zero. And I will read the resolution. 01:49:52.578 --> 01:50:14.686 - Today, regarding the property located at 521 North Dunn, the Historic Preservation Commission declares that it got notice of proposed demolition and after today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. The HPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the Common Council. 01:50:21.346 --> 01:50:48.158 - Old business. Old business. OK. So first up, an old business update. Outstanding violations. There are several that we're still looking at, one that has been resolved. A tarp fence had been put up between two houses in the Elm Heights Historic District. 01:50:48.258 --> 01:51:17.534 - without commission approval that has since been taken down. 906 West 6th Street. This is one that we had discussed in the past. It had recently been purchased by a new buyer. It was not the person who committed the violations. So there's been some discussion about whether that buyer may be able to, we may be able to collect fees from that person. 01:51:18.178 --> 01:51:43.646 - Um, but the new owner, you know, has inherited this violation as well as the building code violation from the county. And it has agreed to me to put back on the door that was removed from the front. And it sounds like they would like to come in and, um, apply for a retroactive COA for the removal of the chimney. Um, 01:51:44.834 --> 01:52:13.214 - 924 West Kirkwood, that's new. Not much has happened on the building yet. This is in the near west side historic district. Somebody noticed that there was work going on in the porch, which had not been noticed to us. So that has been put on pause because they have a application with the planning department that includes mostly interior changes as well as some exterior alterations to the porch that were not 01:52:13.858 --> 01:52:42.014 - detailed very specifically in their proposal. So the planning department or whoever was handling that case and not thought that it was something that they needed to disclose to me at that point. So that is on hold and they're going to be coming to us with their application for, it sounds like it's going to be pretty close to replacement in kind of some of the materials on the porch, but I'm going to have to get more specific materials from them. Yes. 01:52:44.162 --> 01:53:11.838 - Yeah, which basically that is on hold we need to hit up the property owner with the subject of fees and Basically get him to come back with Your replacement window that matches what was there before Then 01:53:12.002 --> 01:53:41.406 - Limestone sidewalk at South Dunn, part of the conversation there is going to be about what sort of bidding process might be involved if we were to... Losing what? Quorum. Quorum, okay. Well, this is basically an update, so we don't have to vote on anything. Thank you for coming. Yeah. Because the limestone sidewalk would fall into the realm of public works. First of all, anything while that was done there, anything that is going to be done there, 01:53:42.306 --> 01:54:07.038 - We need commission approval. But secondly, we're going to have to figure out what the process would be for getting a contractor and bidding on that if there was going to be some attempt to restore it either in its former location or where the stones have been moved to. So that's sort of where we are with the outstanding issues. Any questions? 01:54:12.802 --> 01:54:37.214 - I think we've still got a lot of clock left on Willow Terrace, right? Yeah. We're now less than two years out. If anybody knows any good purveyors of Terracotta tile, reach out to them. Any Commissioner comments? 01:54:43.138 --> 01:55:11.678 - Claude, all of you for? Restraint. Well, not just restraint, but I think all of these demolition delays have been very difficult. And figuring out what to do with them and where that line is is very difficult. So I appreciate all of your candor and your passion. And I'm very glad you all are here. So thank you for coming in. 01:55:13.026 --> 01:55:29.534 - you will be taking us to parlor donuts. And I will be taking us all out for donuts? Yeah, no. But we have to notice it if we do go on a donut run. All right. Hearing nothing further, we're adjourned.